The collection and processing of a considerable variety of information
on every kind of world problem, and on the attempts at their solution,
forced the editors to look at the nature of such problems in general and
the psycho-social context within which solutions were advocated or attempted.
Some reflections on these matters appear in the introduction to some sections
of the Yearbook or in its Appendixes. It seemed useful however to try to
clarify these perceptions to facilitate further discussion.

The point of this document is therefore to draw attention to a series
of constraints or difficulties which seem to prevent mankind from responding
successfully to the current crisis condition of the world. It is not
the intention to focus on conventional, well-publicized difficulties or
inequalities which many assume to be at the origin of the current unsatisfactory
situation. Arguments of this type have been put forward on many occasions
and from many points of view. Many are summarized in the Yearbook which
describes some 2600 recognized world problems.

This document is concerned with highlighting those difficulties which
prevent the successful achievement of the objectives of any remedial programme
of social significance at this time. It is particularly concerned with
those cases where there is consensus concerning the desirability of remedial
action, specially where some coherent plan of action has been formulated,
and where the usual problems of funding and other programme resources have
been eliminated.

This document is also concerned with highlighting those difficulties
which prevent the successful implementation of programmes designed to facilitate
human development and for the full realization of human potential not
as remedial action, but in an attempt to go beyond what has already been
achieved.

Just as it is not the intention to focus on well-publicized difficulties,
the focus is also restricted to the kinds of difficulty experienced
even when the individuals and organizations concerned perceive themselves
to be sincerely working in the interests of mankind as a whole, whether
within their community or through transnational bodies. It is not concerned
with difficulties deriving from corruption, deliberate misuse of structures,
procedures and processes, or actions of other than benevolent intent, however
limited the domain of application.

The question could be raised as to whether there is any benefit in identifying
such difficulties, given that we all know that there are obstacles to significant
change. Also, many of these difficulties have been described at great length
in more suitable contexts. In answer, however, there does seem to be a
case for attempting to portray within one framework the variety of interacting
difficulties as they stand at the moment. There Is usually a tendency to
bury such recognition in the postmortem on some programme which has failed
- and, to avoid offence, such analysis is usually made informally or in
documents whose circulation is highly restricted. By treating these difficulties
as independent of any particular named context, they can be considered
with less emotion and defensiveness. Hopefully by expressing them in this
way, it willbe possible to provoke a creative response which will
show a way past the limits as defined.

Many would also claim that most of these problems would be eliminated
if humanity organized itself within one ideological framework, under one
governmental system, with one system of ethics or values, with one religion,
within one legal framework, etc. Whilst any or all of these may emerge
as an attempt to respond to the immediate crises, it is unclear just how
long humanity would be satisfied with such frameworks. History would seem
to indicate that the period of satisfaction becomes increasingly shorter.
It is brought to an end by the re-emergence of one or more of the limits
or constraints on social interaction which are noted in this document.
These limits would seem to function to protect the psycho-social diversity
of humanity - which may be of most importance for its long-term survival.
At the same time, we are faced with the paradoxical situation that they
also appear to prevent the degree of social interaction and organization
which seems to be essential for any adequate response to the current crises.

The full realization of human potential is associated in some way with
the development of diversity restrained or contained by some unifying framework.
Debate and social experiment will continue to focus on the meaning to be
attached to "diversity" and "unifying framework and the forms to which
they can usefully give rise under different conditions.

---------

Few of the perceptions in this document are original. Some have
been recorded many times. It may be useful to include references in a later
version.

1. Limited tolerance of interaction

In discussion about the psycho-social system within which we are immersed
and of which we form a part, we define features of that system such as
as concepts, organizations, roles, etc. We are aware that these interact
in a variety of ways. There is consensus that the extent of this interaction
is very great, because society is so complex. It is therefore widely agreed
that it is impossible to give adequate consideration to all interactions.
This is the basis for the current division of labour in which special concern
is given by some people or groups to some features of society - but few
are able to give consideration to much beyond their own central concern.
We cannot allow ourselves to be sensitive to too many interactions or else
we would be recognizing a situation of such complexity that we would be
unable to determine where or how to act.

It becomes increasingly easy to act as we limit the number of interactions
to which we are sensitive and which we feel obliged to define as relevant.
To the extent that we can manage to define interactions as irrelevant,
we therefore increase our immediate freedom of action.

Clearly, however, those interactions which we define as irrelevant and
which we successfully avoid taking into consideration, will eventually
have some impact on the actions which we undertake. Very strong interactions
which are ignored may prevent our project or programme from even getting
through its first phase, thus necessitating a general re-assessment during
which those factors would presumably be taken into account. Weaker interactions
which are ignored may simply prevent the project or programme from being
evaluated as a success once terminated. The evaluation may not even clearly
identify them and the responsible organizations may justify the continued
use of the same project formula by deliberately or unconsciously interpreting
the project evaluations in order to highlight whatever positive results
they can claim to have achieved without fear of credible contradiction.

Interactions of an even weaker nature may never be detected. They may
simply have the effect of completely eroding the positive achievements
of a programme over periods of time corresponding to the degree of weakness
of the interaction. Clearly such interactions will not be noted if they
are only evident 5, 10 or 50 years after the completion of the original
programme - namely beyond the time horizon of any political group bent
on re-election.

Interactions are not all negative in consequence by any means. Clearly
ignoring positive interactions may prevent them from being used to ensure
the success of the programme - whether In the short-term or in the long-term.

1.1 Limits to inter-organizational interaction

Although we have a very clear theoretical and operational understanding
of the way single organizations, groups or institutions function, this
understanding does not extend to include the way groups of organizations
function together as a network. Even when a person within an organization
interacts daily with client organizations, competitor organizations, pressure
groups, etc., the perspective is still very much a case of "we" and "they"

This therefore means that the ability of a particular group or institution
to function skillfully within a network of other bodies is essentially
limited to a strategy of self-advantage. This may however be partially
compensated by some understanding of the needs or responsibilities of the
larger group of bodies to which it belongs (e.g. industrial sector, charitable
bodies, or academic societies. etc.), but again this is largely seen in
terms of self-advantage.

Cooperation between organizations, if it occurs, is most developed between
two organizations, where each is directly aware of its own advantage. Such
cooperation is decreasingly successful as the number of organizations involved
in the network increases. This is matched by a rapid decrease in the sophistication
of interorganizational mechanisms used as well as a reduction in expectation
of the benefits of such cooperation. So, for example, a group of 20 or
more bodies might be quite satisfied to have an occasional meeting together
at which praise would be given to the notion of cooperation between
them and to the exchange of ideas. Any activities for the group proposed
within such a contexts would tend to be of symbolic or token significance
only and would have to be defined such as not to constitute any form of
threat to the sensibilities of any of the group.

These difficulties are increased where the organizations involved are
of a different nature, have a different structure, or use different modes
of action (e.g. governmental/ nongovernmental, profit/nonprofit, research/action
programme, etc.). As the diversity increases, so does the tendency of each
subgroup to perceive the activity of others as being of marginal relevance
or importance.

Clearly with such constraints, it is difficult to achieve any concerted
interorganizational strategy to make best use of the resources of the network
in question in order to achieve significant change. In fact, even if the
organizations are of an extremely activist nature, the conservatism and
paralysis of the network as a network - increases as the number of organizations
involved increases.

It Is for this reason that any attempt to "mobilize" a network of organizations
behind some particular issue or banner succeeds to the extent that large
numbers of organizations are prepared to express agreement on fundamental
issues (e.g. environment, human rights, etc.). It fails to the extent that
such expressions, whilst sincere, are usually of a token nature and do
not constitute an operational mobilization of any significance. The simplistic
attempts by activist organizations to achieve such mobilization appeal
to only a limited number of bodies. The others do not wish to be absorbed
into activities which deny the significance of their own special approach
or concern.

1.2 Limits to inter-disciplinary interaction

The need to interrelate the approaches of different disciplines, in
order to understand a social problem situation and to be able to recommend
appropriate remedial programmes, is now increasingly recognized. The "inter-disciplinary"
approach is now in fashion and an essential element in many requests for
programme funds. However, on closer examination, it is possible to discover
that this requirement, far from constituting any form of progress, is only
the symptom of the pathological state of knowledge at this time. The specialization
without limit of scientific disciplines has resulted in an increasing fragmentation
of the epistemological horizon. Specialists cannot be asked to testify
with regard to the unification of the sciences insofar as these specialists
by their vocation and training are ignorant of, or deny this very unity.
Even those who profess to stand for the unification of the sciences cannot
be trusted, for each one of them would be satisfied in defining their familiar
point of view, and more or less justifying their own individual presuppositions.

Teaching and research institutions reinforce the above separation through
administrative procedures which tend to eliminate communications with Institutions
associated with other disciplines. The division of intellectual space into
smaller and 'Smaller compartments and the multiplication of institutions
which assume the management of each such territory results in the formation
of a feudal system which governs the majority of scientific teaching and
research enterprises.

When an "interdisciplinary" approach is used it most often consists
in bringing together (for a meeting or project) specialists from different
disciplines, in the simplistic belief that such an assembly would suffice
to bring about a common ground and a common language between individuals
who have nothing else in common. The reports or results of such activities
neither achieve nor attempt to achieve any synthesis other than the purely
spatial juxtaposition of viewpoints and constraints.

Few of the societal problems at this time can adequately be handled
within any one discipline. Such problems result from the interaction of
social, economic, technological, political religious, psychological, biological
and other factors. Understanding requires an integration of the relevant
disciplinary perspectives. Such integration however must be much more than
the synthesis of results obtained by independently conducted unidisciplinary
studies. The synthesis, to be useful, must come during not after the performance
of the research.

Where such interdisciplinary synthesis does take place, however, it
is most successful between two closely related disciplines. Such integration
is decreasingly successful as the number of disciplines involved increases.
This is matched by a rapid decrease in the sophistication of the synthesis
and a reduction in expectation of its benefits by those involved.
The difficulties are increased when the disciplines are of a different
nature, have fundamentally different methodologies, or focus on very different
subject matter. As the variety of disciplinary perspective increases, so
does the tendency of each subgroup to perceive the activity of others as
being of marginal relevance or Importance.

Clearly with such constraints it is difficult to achieve any concerted
interdisciplinary activity to make best use of the intellectual resources
available in order to guide significant change.

1.3 Limits to interaction between ideologies

Clearly the subtle and dramatic distinctions between the viewpoints
of different ideological camps, and the political and governmental positions
to which they give rise, impose severe limitations on the viability or
permanence of any compromise.

1.4 Limits to interaction between information
systems

In most domains of social activity large quantities of information are
generated, stored, transferred, manipulated, retrieved, etc. To do this
increasing use is made of sophisticated information systems which are being
progressively transferred to computers. Once an information system has
been developed, and the necessary administrative procedures and computer
programmes have been adopted, modifications are costly and difficult to
justify .

Since most information systems are designed to support and facilitate
the activities of particular institutions by which they are funded, the
constraints on inter-organizational collaboration (see ) and the inertia
associated with such systems combine to prevent any interaction between
information
systems - even when this is acknowledged by all parties as being beneficial.

The consequence is that even when essential information is available
it cannot be brought together easily, if at all, in order to guide decisions
with regard to effective action. Also, the more different the information
systems or the organizations responsible for them, the more difficult it
becomes to achieve any useful degree of integration between such systems.
This is particularly the case when such systems, although containing related
data, have such different purposes as: research, education, programme administration
policy formulation, etc.

1.5 Limits to interaction between classification
systems

Classification systems are widely used by disciplines and administrations,
and within information systems of every kind. They are essential as a means
of filtering and ordering the large amounts of information which must be
handled within every social domain.

Most classification systems are designed and developed by a limited
group of organizations whose priorities are necessarily reflected in the
actual structure of their chosen system. The intellectual and financial
investment in such systems, in the associated information systems (see
. . ) and the constraints on inter-organizational collaboration (see ....
) combine to prevent any significant interaction between classification
systems - even when this is acknowledged by all parties as being beneficial.

The consequence is that even when essential information is available,
it cannot be converted from one classification system to another in order
to interrelate corresponding data - even when the relationships between
the information systems creates no obstacle. Comparing relevant data emerging
through incompatible classification systems then becomes time-consuming
and costly, if not impossible.

1.6 Limits to interaction between action programmes

Even when organizations and Institutions have some degree of inter-communication
or common policy, their programmes in some particular geographical, topic
or problem area may nevertheless be only nominally integrated if at all.
This may lead to situations in which bodies which are supposedly collaborating
In fact have programmes which compete for resources, conflict with one
another, or even nullify each others positive achievements.

Such programme conflict, whatever its extent, may even be recognized
and deplored by the responsible organizations. However, because of the
cumbersomeness of the procedural and administrative apparatus through which
they are obliged to work, it may be almost impossible to alleviate the
situation. (Perhaps the most classical example is the situation in which
a single road is dug up and repaired five times in succession by the local
road authority, electricity authority, gas authority, water authority and
telecommunications authority - because it Is easier to use resources in
this way than to coordinate schedules.)

Clearly this situation imposes limits on the range of programmes which
can be undertaken in a given area without the emergence of some form of
conflict and wastage of resources.

1.7 Limits to resource sharing

There are many cases in which organizations of every kind have similar
administrative problems and facilities (e.g. office space, office
equipment, mailings, billing, secretarial and specialist staff, etc.).
In such cases, whether or not they have similar concerns and there is any
possibility or justification for actual programme collaboration, it would
be possible for such organizations to save resources and increase their
efficiency and effectiveness . This could be done by sharing those administrative
facilities they have in common in order to reduce their general office
overheads. A typical example Is for two bodies to share a photocopier,
permitting them to eliminate one machine (if they each have one) or to
justify the rental of a larger and more efficient one at greater cost.

The same argument can be applied to mailing and invoicing systems,
accountancy staff, telephone and telex equipment, etc. And clearly the
more organizations that can combine together, the greater the possibility
of developing a resource saving formula which can lead to greater effectiveness.

Where different organizations with overlapping memberships hold separate
meetings to which the same individuals are obliged to travel, there is
a strong case for holding such meetings at the same place - if only to
allow the individuals to save travel expenses. But clearly this approach
also saves meeting overhead costs, allows for more cross-fertilization
and facilitates the emergence of any joint meeting sessions or projects.

Resource sharing of this kind is relatively rare, even though in its
absence many groups cannot function or have to reduce the level of their
activity and hence their effectiveness. It is very difficult for organizations
to distinguish their separate programme concerns from their common administrative
problems leading, in the extreme, to cases where an organization refuses
to share an accountant or a photocopier, for example, because it might
be interpreted as approval or support for the other's programme or condoning
the other's interference in its own programmes.

Clearly with such constraints much remedial programme action is severely
handicapped, if not impossible; and this is self-righteously accepted as
being due to lack of adequate resources.

1.8 Limits to interaction between modes of action

For many domains of activity special attention must be given to such
disparate concerns as: research to advance knowledge, education to disseminate
that knowledge to students, public information to reformulate that knowledge
for a wider public, programme administration to use that knowledge in the
course of programme activity, policy formulation to use that knowledge
to reformulate programme strategy, etc.

These different concerns may be the responsibility of different departments
within one institutional framework, or else they may be the prime activity
of several distinct and independent organizations. In either case, the
different approaches and emphases - the different modes of activity - make
interaction between such activities difficult to maintain and easy to treat
as of low priority. This is so despite the fact that inadequacy In any
of such special concerns has more or less delayed negative effects on the
others. If, for example, a research advance takes several years to enter
the educational system, it will take longer to be taken into account in
policy formulation and programme management. Equally, if so new difficulty
emerges in the course of an action programme, it may take years before
it is recognized as a valid topic of research.

Clearly such lack of integration, and the consequent lags introduced,
constitute a severe handicap in any attempt to respond to rapidly evolving
crises.

1.9 Limits to interaction between preferred perceptual
modes

Different modes of communication appeal to different people due to a
mix of factors such as: educational background, tradition, cultural context,
personal preferences, experience, etc. A particular Individual, or class
of individuals (e.g. sociologists, artists, etc.) will therefore tend to
have a preference for material structured according to one or more such
fairly distinct modes as: written textual presentation, formal verbal presentation
(at a lecture), informal verbal presentation (face-to-face dialogue) ,
dramatic representation (theatre, cinema, etc.), concrete experience (in
physical contact with the situation), audio- visual representation, use
of abstract structured presentations (matrices, graphs, models, etc.),
mathematical equations, and so on.

If, therefore, a person prefers to receive information through a formal
lecture or debate It may then be very difficult to communicate with that
person through written material in the form of a report - however well
it is structured and illustrated. The opposite will also be true.

It is very costly and time consuming to "translate" the same information
content for presentation in terms of each of these different perceptual
modes, particularly since each mode lends itself to certain emphases which
are lost in the others as Is the case between any language.

Clearly it then becomes very difficult, if not impossible, to communicate
between very different groups of people without loss of impact, distortion
or complete loss of significant content.

1.10 Limits to interaction between preferred
modes of change

People tend to move or drift through the social system into those groups
and organizations which are engaged in the change processes most congenial
to them. As individuals develop they may reach stages when a given change
process and its organizational support seems unfruitful or unsuited to
their desire for self- expression. The individual needs fresh fields to
conquer, a new life-style or a new mode of work. The development of the
individual implies life-style mobility and organizational and social change.
Social change and development requires development of the individual to
adapt to new challenges.

The difficulty is that society currently sanctions movement within
organizational and career systems but not between them. The individual
is therefore forced into one particular mode of self-expression for his
whole working life unless he wishes to run the risk of being labelled a
grass-hopper or dilettante, or of being viewed as an ignorant outsider
(a "foreigner") in the systems into which he attempts to move.

Within one system an individual can of course develop other modes of
self-expression but only as secondary modes within the constant
and overriding primary mode (e.g. as an executive in the business system,
an individual can move from a high technology corporation to a commercial
art corporation; the switch from science to art is contained within the
unchanging management framework.).

The problem is therefore whether it is possible to provide an organizational
setting in which an individual can develop secondary modes of expression
and allow any of them to become primary for any desired length of time.

The problem is complicated by the very radical nature of the differences
between approaches to change as well as between the corresponding modes
of expression of the individual engaged in them. There does not appear
to be any systematic listing of change strategies, but the following list
is an indication of the variety.

political action

scientific and technological development

economic and financial development

education, training

art, music

architectural and machine design, urban planning

religious faith, prayer

social engineering, social development

philosophical or esoteric understanding

behavioural and perceptual modifications by drugs

public information, media, propaganda

community development

drama, theatre

organizational development

legislative action

military or police action

direct action, violent civilian protest

personal encounter, dialogue, sex

self -exploration, meditation

mediation, negotiation

manual labour

Ironically, the proponents of a particular form of change tend to perceive
it as the only viable or significant form (e.g. to a political activist
everything of any significance is political). They are unable to detect
the manner in which their action is counter-balanced, checked, contained
or even undermined by the other forms of change. Similarly it is not possible
to determine how such different strategies can be blended harmoniously
together into a mix which can ensure appropriate change. No body has a
mandate to attempt this, and no integrative discipline exists to legitimate
such an approach.

1.11 Limits to interaction determined by levels
of ability

Intellectual, affective and physical skills are very unequally distributed
within any society. Aside from constituting a problem in its own right
(and as such not dealt with here), such unequal distribution introduces
major obstacles to interaction within society. These may of course be aggravated
by associated problems of class, culture, race, etc. but they may also
be independent of them as well as of factors such as: educational background,
experience, tradition, etc. Affective handicaps, for example, are common
in those with intellectual skills whatever their background.

In such a situation it is difficult to find a suitable content and
a suitable mode of expression which will be considered meaningful by all
those who need to be Involved in a coherent programme to remedy any problem
situation. Excessive appeals to those with, or without, particular skills
may merely serve to aggravate a crisis by ignoring either the contribution
or the problem constituted by those with, or without, those skills .

1.12 Limits to inter-species interaction

Humanity dwells upon this planet as one species amongst several million
plant and animal species upon many of which it is directly, or indirectly,
dependent. The relationship is not one-sided, for many of these species
are increasingly dependent, whether directly or indirectly, on humanity's
activities and protection.

In an increasingly urbanized environment, however, a decreasing proportion
of the voting population has much direct conscious contact with more than
a few species. The vast majority of plant and animal species, and the complex
ecosystems In which they are embedded, have little more than curiosity
value for most people.

It is probable that the full realization of human potential cannot
be achieved by progressively limiting the amount of contact between human
and other species if only that the degree of such contact is one factor
in any measure of the quality of human life. But the ability to sustain
such contact is also an indicator of the ability of humanity to function
as gardener or steward of the planet upon which it depends for its continued
survival. Paradoxically, it is also the maturity associated with the ability
to perceive the value of the total range of species which will also determine
humanity's ability to respond adequately to extra- terrestrial species,
whether intelligent or not.

1.13 Limits to interaction between disciplinary
languages

To the extent that each science is a well-formed language, each language
thus created encloses the associated knowledge in an axiomatic space isolated
from that of similar languages. Knowledge expressed through one language
cannot be "translated" Into that of another language by any theoretically
acceptable means. In particular any such attempt cannot be legitimated
from within the language of origin or from within the receiving language.
(This is equivalent to the problem of translation between natural language
- for which there is no theoretical basis) . As with natural language translation,
all that is possible is the establishment of some degree of analogy or
isomorphism between statements in two languages. Clearly any such parallels
are increasingly difficult to establish as the difference between the structure
of the disciplinary languages increases.

Clearly the constraints that this imposes upon interdisciplinary discourse
and the consequent inability to make full and widespread use of existing
knowledge are a considerable handicap to the dissemination and application
of that knowledge to remedy problem situations. The situation is not help
by the development of specialized jargons incomprehensible outside a limited
circle of initiates.

1.14 Limits to interaction between languages

The multiplicity of languages is a major dividing factor in world society,
reinforcing geographical, socio- economic, political, ideological, professional
and religious separatism. It prevents or hinders communication and the
spread of education, and thus aggravates misunderstanding and mutual suspicion.

Clearly it may take many years, if ever, before a particular document
is translated into any but the major world languages. This limits the opportunity
of those who are not conversant with the major languages and creates isolated
cultural pockets. The very quantity of material published in the major
languages, and the natural disinclination to read in other than one's own
language, may also establish significant barriers to transfer of knowledge
even between major languages.

The problem is not simply one of translation, however, which may be
relatively easy between languages of the same group (e.g. indo-european
languages) or between industrialized countries . Where the translation
is between languages with very different conceptual frameworks (e.g. English
and Chinese) or into a language whose concept structure is relatively underdeveloped
(or highly developed) in some domain, considerable difficulties may arise.
Equivalent terms, tenses or distinctions may be lacking or else be present
in an embarrassing abundance creating a problem of choice.

Points of significance may emerge as insignificant or naive in the
translated context or take on excessive significance which make them unacceptable.
Points clearly made may emerge as extremely ambiguous or poorly thought
out whereas those made ambiguously may emerge as categoric. Metaphors and
examples may render the translation unacceptable (because of their religious
or moral connotations).

1.15 Limits to interaction from territoriality

It is widely assumed that people or organizations acting on problems
are attempting to improve the system (as a whole). But in the case of politicians,
academics, and organizations in general, it is not always the substantive
problem which is important. This is in many cases merely a symbol for the
territory constituted by the issue.

a . In the case of diplomacy or politics, issues are viewed as an opportunity
for advancement of the nation or party and only incidentally, and as an
unforeseen and occasional by-product, as a question which requires solution
in its own right, independent of national interests or party politics.

b. Organizations in general, including supra-national agencies, are
locked into complex games. Again it is not program effectiveness which
is the criterion but rather the territory constituted by the problem for
which the program was created. Organizations become "learning environments"
and role habitats and have a system maintenance, rather than a system change,
function. "The organization is the message."

c . In the academic environment, again it is territory which is the
prime concern. A new hypothesis is viewed, if at all, as a territorial
intrusion. Even if it is satisfactory, in terms of explanatory power, it
will be analyzed in terms of opportunities for publishable criticism or
counter proposals which will
improve the academic status of the scholar. A scholar must dissent
to distinguish himself from his fellows.

Activity in politics, organizations or academe may be more directed to
stabilizing a condition of fulfilling behaviour. As a result "more effective"
or "more truthful" may become interpreted as doing more activity of the
same kind. The tension required to detect and solve the problem, and the
associated behaviour, may be considered a desirable feature of the environment
and therefore oppose convergence to any "solution".

Much activity is therefore a question of "toumer autour du pot" in
order to ensure maintenance of the status quo. One perceives a central
but unintegrated truth which one does not wish to see integrated and expressed
explicitly because this would "take apart" and render "transparent" one's
system and life style.

Problems are recognized and organized for in order to provide a structured
environment of such dimensions and complexity as is adequate for one's
ability to respond.

The stimulus of the presence of the problem is a reinforcement to one's
identity. It is selected to provide a domain on which one can demonstrate
one's ability to master one's environment.

"Progress" and the acquisition by an individual or group of adequate
"identity" may be basically incompatible. "Identity" is achieved in terms
of certain organizational or conceptual structures or invariants which
become progressively more widely recognized as one's identity is accepted
as a reference point in society. But each person reaches a stage at which
he feels he has found and is satisfied with his identity and associates
it closely with a unique set of invariants defined as his territory.

Progress and social change are essentially the change in the constellation
of organizational and conceptual patterns which govern behavior. Progress
must therefore threaten those identified with any existing set of invariants.
Their loss of identity may not be compensated by the opportunities for
new identity in the new situation. The society may be stripped of identification
opportunities causing the culture to decay or decrease in richness.

1.16 Limits to recognition of interaction between
problems

Despite of much publicity, the number and complexity of the interrelationships
between societal problems, whether at the world or community level, is
still only adequately conceived by specialists. It is this large number
of interrelationships which, whether ascertained or not, greatly restricts
the range of action open to the policy maker. And it is this situation
which has brought about the tendency for the solution of one problem to
create a number of new ones, often in fields only distantly related at
first sight to the original matter.

In this situation, even specialists have limited ability or inclination
to determine just where other problems may emerge as a result of the implementation
of their recommendation. Few specialists would refuse to accept that their
own particular discipline had a key role to play in the response to any
complex societal problem.

It is legitimate to query whether the question as to which are the
5 or 10 most important world problems is as ecologically inappropriate
as asking which are the 5 or 10 most Important plants or animals in a complex
food web interrelating hundreds of species. The relationships between problems
may even be usefully conceived as analogous to the webs and trophic levels
within which animals are embedded.

Because this situation Is not fully understood, there is a general
disposition to envisage and treat the symptoms of trouble, particularly
the more obvious ones, rather than to seek out and deal with root causes
. Each specialist or decision-maker approaches the inter-problem complex
from the point most familiar and relevant to him in the simplistic belief
that such an approach will enable him to encompass all the problems relevant
to the crisis which he faces.

Clearly in such circumstances there is a strong possibility that the
complexity of the inter-problem network with which humanity is faced is
greater than that which its organizational and intellectual resources are
capable of comprehending and containing. Over-ready acceptance of this
is used to justify simplistic crisis management policies and priorities.

1.17 Limits to recognition of interaction between
values

The debate on social policy at the local, national or world level is
full of appeals to concepts such as equality, justice, peace and liberty.
These are abstract concepts of great ambiguity and imprecision. In part,
their power and usefulness is due to this, since each generation is then
obliged to redefine the content to be associated with such terms.

The vagueness attached to the notion of values in the formulation of
social policy has led to the proposal of a multiplicity of definitions
and key values. Despite the interest in the matter and the vigour of the
ongoing debate, no means has been discovered of interrelating the variety
of currently proposed values in a manner which has any universal appeal
or significance.

Indeed there is widespread recognition that the rate of value change
is increasing to a point at which it is no longer possible to predict with
any accuracy the major value shifts which now occur within the time period
of one generation.

Clearly under such circumstances, when there are conflicting appeals
to different values and ethical systems, it is extremely difficult to formulate
any stable value-based social policy.

1.18 Limits to interrelating pre-logical personality
biases

At the basis of the personality of every person or group there is a
set of pre-rational temperamental biases which are reflected in the individual
or group aesthetical or theoretical products and In the value preferences.
These may be positioned somewhere along axes of bias such as the following:

1 . Order vs disorder, namely the range between a preference for fluidity,
muddle, chaos, etc. and a preference for system, structure, conceptual
clarity, etc .

2. Static vs dynamic, namely the range between a preference for the
changeless, eternal, etc. and a preference for movement, for explanation
in genetic and process terms, etc .

3. Continuity vs discrete, namely the range between a preference for
wholeness, unity, etc. and a preference for discreteness, plurality, diversity,
etc.

4. Inner vs outer, namely the range between a preference for being
able to project oneself into the objects of one's experience (to experience
them as one experiences oneself), and a preference
for a relatively external, objective relation to them.

5. Sharp focus vs soft focus, namely the range between a preference
for clear, direct experience and a preference for threshold experiences
which are felt to be saturated with more meaning than is immediately present.

6. This world vs other world, namely the range between a preference
for belief in the spatio-temporal world as self-explanatory and a preference
for belief that it is not self-explanatory (but can only be comprehended
in the light of other factors and frames of reference) .

7. Spontaneity vs process, namely the range between a preference for
chance, freedom, accident, etc. and a preference for explanations subject
to laws and definable processes.

Such pre-logical biases may be at the base of choice of life-style, discipline,
policy, mode of action, mode of presentation of information, etc. To the
extent that people have very different profiles In terms of these axes,
every particular position, viewpoint or programme will have only limited
appeal.

1.19 Limits to interaction between religions

Despite of increasingly widespread recognition of common or overlapping
values and concerns underlying the majority of religions, the ability of
organized religions to find some basis for formal interaction amongst themselves
remains low. This is not only the case between religions having the same
historical origin, but even more so between religions of different historical
origin.

Clearly to the extent that organized religions continue to be considered
the guardians of social values, the difficulties they and their converts
have in acknowledging the significance of each other's values are an indicator
of a fundamental constraint upon the full realization of human potential.

1.20 Limits to interaction between tribes or
ethnic groups

1.21 Limits to interaction between classes or
castes

1.22 Limits to interaction between cultures

1.23 Limits to inter-personal trust

In an increasingly urbanized and mechanized society people are forced
into positions of greater physical proximity and face-to-face contact with
one another. In many cases there Is an increasing possibility that they
will either incur unwelcome obligations as a result of such contact or
be exploited. Consequently people feel it necessary for their own psycho-social
well-being to limit severely the confidence they place In others in such
daily encounters to the point of avoiding involvement in assisting at the
scene of accidents or in other personal crises to which they are exposed.

Clearly this increasing tendency, whilst a protection for the individual,
constitutes a constraint upon the full development of human potential in
modern society.

1.24 Limits to relationships between sexes

Clearly the difficulties encountered In organizing social and personal
relationships to take into account and balance the qualities and attributes
of both sexes constitute a fundamental barrier to the full realization
of human potential. The complications resulting from persistence in inadequate
attempts to achieve this balance, or to compensate for the failure to achieve
It, or to create the impression that it has been achieved, only serve to
aggravate the situation.

1.25 Limits to intra-familial relationships

Clearly the progressive erosion in the ability to create and maintain
a family environment rich in psycho-social meaning constitutes a significant
deprivation both for the growing child and for the maturing adult. This
is the case whether it is a question of the traditional nuclear family,
an extended family circle or any communal living substitute. This impoverishment
of the psycho-social environment, and its significance for the psycho-social
integration of the individual, constitutes a fundamental constraint upon
the full realization of human potential.

1.26 Limits to inter- generation relationships

Due to the fragmentation of society and the alienation of significant
proportions of the younger generation from the values, social structures
and modes of activity of the elder generations, the difficulties arising
from the generation gap are increasing. It Is no longer certain that the
younger generation can be significantly involved in programmes of importance
to the older generation. It is no longer certain that the younger generation
will be particularly interested in the plight of the very old. Equally,
however, it is certain that the older generations will refuse to relinquish
their traditional hold on the direction and manner of evolution of society.
This built-in conflict situation clearly constitutes a significant constraint
upon the full realization of human potential in society.

2. Absence of over-arching psycho-social structures

In most psycho-social domains there is an acknowledged lack of any overarching
structure which could provide a framework to interlink the preoccupations
within that domain. Examples include: the absence of any world governmental
structure of significant power, the absence of any value or ethical system
of universal significance, the absence of any adequate system of world
law, the absence of any world religion, the absence of any worldwide comprehensive
information system, the absence of any worldwide subject classification
system, the absence of any philosophy or ideology of universal appeal,
the absence of any system unifying the sciences, etc. Whilst any such structure
might well have a negative or constraining influence on activities of the
domain in question, the importance of its integrating effect must be recognized,
whether or not it is implemented by force or without the full understanding
of those whose dissenting viewpoints are suppressed or condemned. The absence
of such structures also hinders any recognition of the interrelationships
within the domain in question.

Paradoxically it appears that, just as in natural ecosystems, it is
only where such over-arching structures are present that a wide variety
of subordinate units can be tolerated, for otherwise such units "compete"
amongst themselves for resources, thus maintaining the variety of the system
at a relatively low level. (The presence of such structures also makes
It possible to conceive of the world as "functionally round" rather than
in terms of completely unrelated "functional continents".)

Clearly despite the repressive threat that they constitute, the absence
of such structures constitute a constraint upon the full realization of
human potential.

3. Limits to the use of hierarchical approaches

In every social domain there is a predilection for simplistic hierarchical
organization of the interrelationships between concepts, between organizational
units, between problems and wherever else there is a need for classification.
And yet society is constantly exposed to evidence that these hierarchies
do not contain the complexity with which they have to deal, nor do they
facilitate the emergence of styles of organization more complex than the
hierarchical.

Category systems of a hierarchical nature tend to become concretized
in information retrieval systems and the hierarchical structure of organizations
and their programmes. They tend to govern the way meetings or curricula
are organized. In every such case they emphasize the vertical part/whole
relationship and preclude any focus on part/part relationships, or relationships
of one part to several distinct wholes . The ability to focus on interrelationships
is therefore severely limited at a time when it is precisely such a focus
which is required to grasp the social complexity to which we are exposed.
At the same time it is the hierarchical approach which is easiest to formulate,
implement and communicate and therefore in time of crisis, it is the approach
most likely to be used.

(An interesting parallel is the ease with which individuals are organized
within regiments within the traditional army hierarchy and the handicaps
under which they operate in attempting to handle guerilla networks.)

4. Limits arising from behaviour in complexity

In a complex psycho-social environment In which those involved must
simplify their perception of their surroundings in order to be able to
act and survive, additional dynamics occur. Individuals, groups and institutions
use that part of the environment upon which they have some conceptual or
operational hold as a "territorial" base from which to interact with others.
There therefore emerges a form of territorial behaviour in which each attempts
to build up the significance and size of his own territory at the expense
of others. This occurs between organizations, between disciplines or schools
of thought, between languages, between cultures, between ideologies, between
religions, between values, etc; in fact within all the domains denoted
by the "inter" limits identified earlier.

Having acquired a hold on a part of any domain, the individual or group
in effect transforms it into a fortress which has to be defended against
enemies from without and against rivals from within. Survival demands an
expertise in strategy and tactics which may well involve obstructing the
development of the portion of the domain over which control has been achieved.

There is a marked parallelism between the well-known behavioural dynamics
evident in the history of the relations amongst groups established on geographical
territories (from tribes to nation-states) and the seldom- acknowledged
dynamics of the relations amongst individuals and groups which have established
the 'functional territories' noted above. Both the geographical and functional
territories offer opportunities for equivalent structures and processes,
with the latter providing an opportunity for a psycho-culturally satisfactory
substitute for geographical area dynamics in a world with limited space.
It is evident however that this opportunity is used wherever possible to
repeat the unfortunate historical experiences associated with geopolitical
territory. Thus parallels to the well-known systems of empire-building,
colonialism, feudalism, slavery, cold-war, isolationism, fascism may currently
be found amongst organizations, amongst disciplines and schools of thought,
amongst cultures, amongst religions, amongst value systems, amongst languages,
etc.

clearly when every new field of opportunity provokes and encourages
a repetition of the same social learning cycle, merely displacing the associated
oppression to a new domain, this constitutes a significant constraint upon
the full realization of human potential.

5. Limited ability to cooperate

There is a marked inability for individuals, groups or institutions
to cooperate. This is the case whether their interests and concerns are
the same or different. When the same, they compete for the same resources
and find themselves obliged to safeguard and promote their own advantage
by denigrating the merits of others and emphasizing their weaknesses. When
different, they may still compete for the same resources and find themselves
obliged to safeguard and promote their own advantage by denigrating the
concerns of others and emphasizing their irrelevance. In both cases hostility
may well be overt.

Clearly this constraint prevents the full realization of human potential.

6. Limits of knowledge and experience

Individuals, groups and institutions which have built up a fund of knowledge,
experience and understanding for themselves tend to be primarily concerned
with the elaboration, implementation, and wider recognition of their own
perspectives - whatever the merits of other perspectives . The experiences
which they have had to endure to bring them to their position of expertise,
understanding and eminence frequently leave them battle-scarred, idiosyncratic
and unable to work with others. They may well be unconscious of their own
defects and their negative effects in any situation.

Such individuals and groups usually acquire their knowledge and understanding
in contexts upon which they are not free to comment, because of the classified
or sensitive nature of the information. Consequently a situation develops
in which those who know are severely limited in their ability to pass on
or disseminate their knowledge, whilst those who are able to do so are
usually misinformed but cannot be contradicted.

Clearly these constraints upon the use of expertise impose restrictions
upon the full realization of human potential.

7. All in everything

It is frequently appreciated that everything is interconnected and that
every issue has to be examined in terms of its potential relationship to
other issues. But in debate on any matter, there is seldom consensus on
how issues should be distinguished and interrelated. One response is to
consider issues in isolation and assume there are no relevant interconnections.
Where there is consensus on the importance of interconnections, the only
others response is to attempt to consider everything in every forum of
debate. This is then used as an excuse for simplifying the issues and picking
out those which are "most important" .

Consequently whatever the macro-issue under discussion, debating points
on any related topics are considered relevant. However, since the relative
importance accorded to such points is based on changing political considerations
rather than substantive ones, such debates are unable to converge on any
implementable programme of significance which takes account of the manner
in which the problems are interlinked. Such debates then become arenas
in which the desire to resolve the Issues is merely reaffirmed and the
participants blame each other or third parties for not coming to grips
with a situation they are unable to focus on.

8. Constraints of space and time

Increasingly people, particularly those in positions of responsibility,
find that they have little time: to read and absorb information relevant
to their tasks, to learn new skills relevant to their tasks, to travel
to environments where they could absorb alternative perspectives on their
concerns, or to relax and digest what they have acquired.

Compounding the problems of shortage of time are those of distance.
The physical separation of locations from which useful experience may be
obtained, and the cost of transport, are such as to hinder the widespread
dissemination of knowledge and understanding.

By the time a person has determined what information he really needs,
found the appropriate document, requested it from some distant location,
obtained it, absorbed the relevant information, and formulated some plan
of action, that information may well no longer be relevant to the problem
as It has subsequently evolved. The time of access to information (particularly
for non-elites) now tends to be a significant proportion of (if not greater
than) the life-cycle of the crisis for which it is required.

These constraints lead to a simplification of the messages which are
considered to be transferable through society. As a consequence society
is divided up into pockets within which more complex and subtle messages
can be successfully and usefully communicated - the more subtle the message,
the smaller the pocket.

9. Erosion of confidence in organized relationships

In an increasingly urbanized and mechanized society, people are forced
to depend to a greater extent upon a wide variety of organized relationships.
These relationships which define some of the individual's different roles
in society include: citizen/local government, citizen/state government.
citizen/law enforcement agency, worker/trade union, consumer/advertiser,
consumer / manufacturer, student/education system, reader/newspaper, employee/corporation,
viewer/television, etc. These relationships become progressively more organized
and out of the control of the Individual bound into them.

The perceived "distance" between the individual and the body controlling
the relationship is increasingly greater.However, as this distance
increases and information concerning manipulation, distortion and similar
abuses of the relationship become Increasingly widespread, the individual's
confidence in them as meaningful and beneficial to him decreases.

The next decades will probably see an increasing disenchantment on the
part of the individual with any "distant" structure or chains of conceptual
or organizational relationship which are supposed to be relevant to his
concerns . The acceptable number of links in such chains "out" from the
individual may be decreasing year by year. There is liable to be a general
loss of confidence in links which the individual cannot inspect for himself.
This applies to news media, TV documentaries, advertising, expert and political
statements . This is significant because it is the projection of this confidence
into such structures which provides the energy and oil to make our more
sophisticated control structures work. Without such confidence, such structures
can only persist as shells with symbolic value. Individuals will isolate
themselves into relatively small communities.

It is widely recognized that the whole system is becoming less and less
credible and acceptable to (i) the younger generation, (ii) the man- in-the-
street, (iii) the developing world. As yet, however, we have no clear historical
parallel to provide the necessary perspective. Perhaps a useful parallel
is that of the place of the Catholic Church and religion in society after
the Renaissance.

We now have a new Universal Church with its orders, namely the intergovernmental
organization and its components bodies. In the interstices of this system
we have new "protesting" sects, namely other organizations, governmental,
academic, business, voluntary, trade union, and otherwise The Church considers
itself the one true church and is anxious to enfold the dissenting and
in some cases, heretical groups. The latter are anxious to spread their
message at all costs. Most organizations are anxious to proselytize. There
are ecumenical movements amongst the protesting organizations, for they
realize that they lack the strength of unity.

We have with this system an organization-based society, just as that
period had a religion-based society. One must belong to an organization.
Organization has become a religion with a strangle-hold on thinking in
the Western world. It is "the only way of getting things done" . The processes
that cannot be organized are ignored or condemned - just as the activities
in the past which could not be given a religious association were ignored
or condemned. A non-religious perspective was inconceivable and smacked
of heresy.

Today it is the younger generation which is opting out of the societal
religion in search of a more organic life style. The results are condemned,
as quackery, superstition, witchcraft and deviltry were condemned.

But the weakness of the organized society is that it is detached from
the needs and individuality of the person - but particularly from his perspective.
It is becoming "irrelevant". People increasingly slip through the grasp
of organizations. (Our preoccupation with static organizational and conceptual
structures may appear to the eyes of the future as irrelevant and irritating
as does Columbus' preoccupation with the religious salvation of the Caribbean
Indians .)

Clearly this erosion of confidence constitutes a real constraint on
the realization of human potential within modern society.

10. Loss of community of discourse

The Increasing uniformity of terminology, and the reduction in the problems
of translation and interpretation, undoubtedly facilitate formal communication
and apparent agreement. Despite this however, such agreements are not well-grounded.
Behind the misty wall of words, the diverse, even contradictory, interpretations,
motivations and utlizations, are an indication of fundamental divisions
concerning values, for example.

Meaning is no longer well-communicated, if it ever has been other than
amongst an elite. There is much misinterpretation of meaning and intention
in every domain. Each group works from different data sources, with different
experience, and feels justified in rating the views of others as of secondary
importance or irrelevant.

The written and spoken words are "babelizing" . Use of the written
word with precise meanings is becoming equivalent to that of Latin as a
medium useful for communication between those (in the academic and administrative
worlds) committed to a rationalized, abstract perspective. It is increasingly
irrelevant to the "lower" reaches of society. People can no longer read
and comprehend items which do not reinforce their own views. For many,
the written word is used as a visual symbol with floating meanings aimed
at achieving an impression and an Involvement (cf. McLuhan). "Lower" here
means poorly informed rather than the usual class distinction. Visual imagery
is as yet at a crude stage of development equivalent to the old peasant
dialects - the "Bible" has not yet been translated.

Those who can understand each other most completely are often precisely
those forced to compete for resources, prestige, etc., or who are fundamentally
opposed to the point of being enemies. They therefore feel obliged to minimize
the extent to which they exchange their latest thinking in any face-to-face
contact by which their conflict might be resolved.

11. Erosion of communication and travel ability

Despite the very large investments made in communication and transport,
the accessibility and usability of such facilities tends to be eroded.
In the case of postal services, the cost of mailing increases, the number
of deliveries decreases and the delivery delays increase (e.g. 2 to 4 months
for intercontinental surface mail). In the case of the telephone service,
the cost of telephoning increases, the installation delay increases, and
the amount of traffic overloads many exchanges. In the case of air travel,
the cost increases in a manner which effectively prevents travel to distant
destinations which were accessible until recent years (and despite empty
seats and unused planes) . The cost of fuel and speed limits are also reducing
the possibility of long distance road travel.

In an Increasingly complex society, which is highly dependent upon communication
to maintain its coherence, the ability of the "average individual" to communicate
is being eroded. At the same time the ability of the elites to communicate
amongst themselves and at the mass of the population is increasing. The
delays incurred in ordinary communications may be such as to ensure that
the goods or information are received long after the time at which they
could have been relevant to ensure an appropriate response to a crisis
situation.

Increasingly such communication and transport facilities that are available
are structured to facilitate priority or bulk traffic between a limited
number of key locations. The priority of traffic between other locations
is reduced and may well be much more costly. (It is, for example, often
cheaper to fly from one African country to Europe and then back to a neighbouring
African country, than to fly from one to the other directly.) Such restrictions
pose considerable problems for the political, social and economic development
of any regions. More genErally they pose a problem for the development
of variety in isolated areas as opposed to the convergent development at
a limited number of central locations.

12. Assumption that the observer or change agent
does not change

There is an implicit assumption that the psycho-social environment can
be observed and acted upon without there being any associated change in
the observer or in the change agent. The academic assumes the ability to
take up some neutral stance, often at a higher level of abstraction, from
which effective observation can take place without either changing the
observed social processes or being changed by them. Organizations and institutions
act in the belief that they can intervene in social processes without there
being any negative consequences and without their being changed by the
action. In both cases there is an assumption of independence from social
processes, although both are forms of social activity.

Such change agents tend not to be aware of their own role as social
entities . They have no built-in self-reflexive capacity. No academic discipline
provides for serious examination of its own social role (e.g. the sociology
of: sociology, political science, chemistry, economics, etc.). And no institution
can build in a self-critical capacity which cannot be ignored or restrained
to guarantee the continued functioning of that institution.

Associated with this is the assumption that (new) content can always
be treated formalistically without the necessity for exposure to (new)
learning experience. This is particularly the case with values. It is assumed
that all those who make reference to "peace", "quality of life", "justice"
, "freedom", etc. have been exposed to positive experiences with which
such terms can be associated - and that such experiences are equivalent
to those experienced by those with whom they are communicating. There is
thus a widespread assumption of common understanding of values which obviates
any need for shared experience or any self-change in order to acquire that
understanding. This assumption justifies the absence of macro-social experiments
to determine whether particular social policies and value mixes are viable
and in conformity with the verbal formulations and claims.

13. Limitation of ability to discover and choose

Despite the increasing availability of goods, services, facilities,
and experiences, and the investment of considerable amounts of money in
publicizing the existence of many of them, there is relatively little that
is done to facilitate the process of choice and discovery in the midst
of such diversity. This is the case in almost every situation where the
problem arises.

Examples include the following: occupation selection is in most cases
a haphazard process based on the vagaries of location and information availability
and presentation; vocational guidance is limited to the commonest job categories
with little thought as to how the individual can gain some gut feeling
for the meaning the occupation would have for him. The selection of wines
and perfumes is governed by the products actually available at the point
of sale and is hampered by the difficulties of achieving unambiguous use
of a limited range of terms to describe a highly complex experience; these
difficulties are aggravated where the staff have limited experience and
are primarily interested in the sale of a particular product range. As
with wines and perfumes, the selection of music is hampered by the difficulty
of sampling a sufficiently wide range in order to guide further exploration
and choice; only limited sampling is possible at the point of sale.

In the case of books, although the browsing process is acceptable to
some people it constitutes a barrier for others and in the larger libraries
it is increasingly forbidden (because of theft). Theatre, ballet and opera
, where the visual dimension is important, are very time-consuming to sample
as a guide to choice. This is also true of painting and the plastic arts,
when photographic reproductions are unsatisfactory or difficult to obtain,
and sampling is dependent upon exhibitions or costly visits to distant
locations. Difficulties are also encountered in determining which places,
or cultural environments to visit. And it is also difficult to determine
beforehand which psycho-cultural experiences or personal relationships
to develop.

In each such case, there is little or no assistance to the individual
in obtaining the answer to the question of what experience or knowledge
of which he is ignorant would in fact prove highly significant to him.
His exploration and selection is hindered by commercial misinformation,
the time required to sample, limited physical accessibility; the risk of
an indifferent performance (in the case of the performing arts), and the
difficulty of recapturing an experience (of a performed or distant work).
However these would be relatively unimportant were it not for the inability
to present such experiences to the individual In terms of their relative
significance to his current developmental needs. Organizing the problem
of choice by author, composer, artist, or manufacturer, or a limited number
of unrelated categories or styles, does little to ease the individual's
difficulty.

Clearly the obstacles noted above constitute a significant limitation
on the full realization of human potential.

14. Limited ability to recognize problem displacement

Frequently a social problem can be eliminated to the satisfaction of
all concerned (from the electorate to the policy-maker) by eliminating
the particular set of symptoms by which it was recognized and which gave
rise to the call for remedial action. Action of this kind merely ensures
that a new set of symptoms emerges in some other social domain. The new
set may well be considered more acceptable or may be less easy to focus
on as the basis for an effective campaign for remedial action. Some time
will also be required before the new set of symptoms can be effectively
recognized. It may in fact be very difficult for an organization to see
that its programmes merely displace a problem into the jurisdiction of
some other body - whose own actions will eventually result in the problem
being displaced back again or into the jurisdiction of a third body. (Institutions
may deliberately move problems through a network of jurisdictions as a
way of legitimating their own continued existence.) Such displacement may
be difficult to detect because one set of symptoms may be apparent in legislation
(e.g. legal discrimination), but when eliminated may then take on an economic
character (e.g. economic discrimination), which if eliminated may then
take on a social character (e.g. social discrimination), and then a cultural
character, etc. Such displacement chains may loop back on themselves and
develop side chains which are difficult to detect since each organization
is only sensitive to the problem symptoms in its own domain and considers
symptoms of the same problem in other domains to be acceptable or of secondary
importance.

This situation makes it difficult to compare the presence or absence
of problems in different geographical areas because of the different forms
its symptoms take, the acceptability of some forms in some areas, or the
lack of sensitivity to them.

15. Erosion of democratic processes

The complexity of society has resulted in the proliferation of governmental
units and procedures designed to respond to the multiplicity of issues
and requirements for regulation. This proliferation has not been accompanied
by any commensurate development In parliamentary procedure, nor any significant
increase in the amount of time available for debate and legislation. Consequently
the responsibility for processing information on increasingly complex matters
falls upon units of bureaucracy. Frequently the complexity of the issues
precludes little more than token parliamentary debate on the matter. There
is therefore little more than symbolic parliamentary control under such
circumstances.

Even within government agencies, the complexity of many issues precludes
effective review by the head of the agency. Pockets of expertise throughout
the governmental system therefore acquire considerable effective power,
and are protected by the limited possibilities for review, and frequently
by security classifications which prevent review by other than interested
parties.

Under such conditions, there is very limited possibility for systematic,
democratic control of the government policies and programmes. There are
frequent opportunities for bureaucratic abuse or the use of bureaucratic
privileges to advance programmes of interest to a particular agency or
unit, irrespective of the probable views of any parliamentary body.

It is therefore increasingly questionable whether the elected representative
can perform other than token functions. The dynamics of the political process,
which reduce the number of parties (often to the one- party level), and
minimize any distinction between the policies of opposing parties and candidates,
further decrease the significance of elections. (The corruption associated
with these processes makes their ability to fulfill their originally intended
function even more doubtful.)

16. Constraints imposed by secrecy

Many aspects of government policy formulation and government agency
activity are increasingly shrouded in secrecy. The same is true for the
activities of many commercial and industrial enterprises. This secrecy
is not only passive but is reinforced by various forms of tacit or explicit
censorship in the media . It is accompanied by use of the media to disseminate
distorted information and various forms of propaganda.

As a consequence few people have any clear understanding of the real
nature of any crisis or of the resources which can be used to contain it.
The average voter is unable to determine the reality of a crisis if government
feels obliged to withhold any information on it, or failing that, to disseminate
misinformation about it. At any time, therefore, the average voter cannot
determine whether there are real crises of which he is ignorant, or whether
the information he receives, minimizing some current crises, is in fact
undistorted. All information becomes suspect, because it is in the interest
of government to keep the population as calm and unpanicked as possible.
However, this then makes it very difficult to mobilize the population in
response to any crisis for which government really does need the people.
(It is the old story of the little shepherd boy who cried "wolf" once too
often.) It also makes it very difficult to determine whether government
really represents the interests of the people, particularly since many
of the duly elected representatives are themselves considered to be security
risks.

17. Concepts of societal complexity limited
by imposed constraints

In ordering understanding of societal complexity, there is a well-established
tendency to impose a relatively simple conceptual framework to facilitate
the task of grasping and explaining the environment. Thus irrespective
of the diversity present in the environment, it is often considered satisfactory
to distinguish not more than 5-10 categories in any field of concern. If
any larger number is used, the adequacy, credibility and comprehensibility
of the explanation becomes increasingly suspect. (There is evidence that
individuals have difficulty in distinguishing between more than about 7
colours, tastes, sounds, odours, etc.) It is of course permissible to distinguish
a number of levels of sub-categories within any such framework, but again
the scheme becomes increasingly unsatisfactory as the number of levels
goes beyond 5-10.

In any argument or debate the same constraint applies, although perhaps
more severely. (A well- known piece of advice to orators is to make not
more than 3 points or else the audience will tend to be confused,
and the orator most certainly would be.)

This situation is reflected in organizational structures. The recommended
size for committees is 5-10 people. It is rare for an individual in any
large organization (including armies) to have more than 5-10 department
heads reporting directly to him. In the case of committees, this ensures
that all views can be adequately represented and discussed. In the case
of organizations, it ensures that one individual can maintain adequate
control over his subordinates.

When information has to be presented or discussed, the subject matter
is usually distorted or reordered to conform to space/time and financial
constraints. This applies, for example, to: the length of a book or one
of its chapters; the length of a radio or TV programme; the amount of time
available on any meeting agenda; etc. The size of a meeting (or meeting
budget) may well be used as the basis for determining the number of bodies
relevant to a representative debate. Clearly in the classic case of the
top policy-maker dictum that any issues should be summarized on one sheet
of paper (or in 5 minutes), if getting it onto one sheet totally erodes
the coherence of the argument to the Point of incomprehensibility, then
any complex case cannot be adequately or credibly presented. In all such
cases, external constraints are used to govern what information is received
and processed, irrespective of the complexity of the issue in question.
Information is compressed to a point below that at which it is comprehensible
or its significance can become evident to the reader. (This is especially
true when abstractions, mathematical expressions or jargon have to be used
to achieve the necessary compression.)

The above points reflect a widely held belief that because something
has been expressed within an acceptable framework it constitutes a satisfactory
representation of the reality to which a response is required. This ignores
the possibility that the framework satisfactory for comprehension may well
be unsatisfactory for any adequate representation. It leads to the formulation
of simplistic programmes which appear satisfactory but which are unable
to contain those aspects of the problem which extend beyond the framework
used. This is the case with many complex social issues.

18. Assumption that further human evolution
may be ignored

The assumption is made that evolution of man has now ceased or may be
ignored and that man may control his future. But the structures with which
we Identify and which we are learning how to modify may merely be temporary
containers for an ongoing evolving life-process. Evolution may now be mainly
along psycho-social lines but it will be as invisible to us as it was to
our physically changing ancestors.

In these terms we should neither expect the sympathy of the evolutionary
process for the preservation of psycho-social structures, nor regret its
absence. In evolutionary terms the criterion is the survival and transformation
of the most appropriate. This has never included the preservation of excessive
numbers against the catastrophes which their presence must evoke. Attempts
at preservation may be anti- evolutionary.

It may well be that the system functions entirely satisfactorily and
of its own accord in responding to disturbances to its dynamic evolving
equilibrium conditions. As sub-systems within the system we would be unable
to detect the manner and justification of the corrective measures. If the
system is self correcting, then any "within- system" efforts to correct
it are bound to give rise to counterbalancing responses. It therefore becomes
questionable as to which changes should be proposed or implemented since
every such intervention is counterbalanced in an unforeseeable manner.
Each such effort causes system disturbances and counter- balancing responses,
acts as a lure for time, energy and organizational resources and creates
its own school followers and opponents. These are within-system changes
and not changes to the system.

Concern with world problems may be "unnecessary" except as an educational
and developmental experience - a sort of social "training game" in which
our culture can be absorbed. Systems analyses of organizations in trouble
generally show that whilst each person acts as best he could, with the
best intentions given the information at his disposal, it is the interaction
of these "well conceived" departmental policies that kept the organization
in its difficulties. The same may be true of the world system - its problems
may be created by the interactions of well-intentioned programs .

Individuals and groups choose courses of action to protect and extend
their identifies. Their choice generates a flora, fauna and eco-system
of roles and structures which must be respected and observed before any
dramatic attempts to "develop" them are made. "Development" and "education"
may in some ways be equivalent (in difficulty and desirability) to a bio-engineering
attempt at converting one species into another. There is not yet a framework
on which the possibilities and dangers of ontogenetic development can be
examined.

The system may not be of a "big bang" developmental type in psycho-social
terms, or on the time scale to which we are exposed. It may be oscillating,
cyclical or homeostatic in terms of a framework which we have not yet clarified
explicitly.

19. Limited ability to face the unknown

In every domain of society there are unknown factors and circumstances
with unpredictable elements which may combine together in unforeseen ways.
The existence and probable future emergence of these currently unrecognized
factors tends however to be more or less deliberately ignored by the individuals,
groups and institutions acting in those domains. It is much simpler to
recognize and respond to the predictable for which the allocation of resources
can be clearly justified in the light of past experience. It is very difficult
to conceptualize the unknown. Consequently it is difficult to justify the
allocation of resources and the restructuring of organizations in order
to prepare for unforeseeable events and crises. To legitimate this stance,
the tendency is to treat the unknown as non-existent or irrelevant.

This attitude may be found within organizations, amongst the practitioners
of most intellectual disciplines and sciences, and in most occupations.
Thus organizations seldom have procedures for handling the unexpected.
Practitioners of a discipline will seldom acknowledge the existence of
relevant matters of which they are ignorant. Disciplines are structured
statically in terms of the known and cannot define or provide for the existence
of what may shortly become known (through ongoing research) or what will
probably continue to remain unknown (at least until there is a paradigm
shift) . Occupations are defined in terms of the needed response to well-defined
problems. Ignorance is only admitted when the knowledge in question can
be considered irrelevant or the responsibility of some other body.

Clearly this constraint limits the ability to look at new conditions
or to look at current conditions anew. People think and act from positions
within a context of which they are content to be unaware. (The attitude
is somewhat analogous to that of a fighter who expects a clearly identified
opponent to fight within the framework of known rules, as contrasted with
the fighter who is prepared to respond to any unexpected assailant acting
independently of any such framework.)

20. Limited ability to face the negative

Individuals, groups and institutions have considerable difficulty in
developing adequate procedures for soliciting, channelling and processing
feedback on the negative consequences of their own positive action or the
absence of any significant consequences at all. They avoid exposure to
and acknowledgement of error, or any attempt to seek out its manifestations
and use information derived from the failure as a basis for learning. Any
report on an organization's actions minimizes any negative references and
is usually deliberately written so as to disguise failures as much as possible.
No institution, nor any cultural ethnic, occupational or other group will
make known an analysis of its own weaknesses unless it feels confident
that the content can be ignored or blamed upon external circumstances.

This inability also extends to the explicit recognition of the problem
situations with which organizations are confronted. It is rare to find
an organization which explicitly defines the social problems with which
it is concerned. Any such negative descriptions tend to be denatured and
distorted in terms of the planned positive programme action to remedy that
aspect of the problem situation to which the programme is able to respond.

Clearly this inability to face up to negativity openly and collectively
inhibits the emergence of any shared self-consciousness about our limited
ability to control our situation well enough to expect to be successful
more often than not. Rather it favours the maintenance of a naive optimism
which inhibits any attempt to evolve a more appropriate response or to
identify the real strength of our complex society.

21. Limited significance of rationality and
appeals to values

There is a widespread assumption that a rational explanation and/or
an appeal to appropriate values is a sufficient justification and guarantee
for valid action or maintenance of a position. Great efforts are therefore
made to generate appropriate rational explanations and to give expression
to them in action plans for organizations .

Such is the mobility of debate and dissemination of (mis) information
on any issue, however, that it is increasingly easy to elaborate any kind
of explanation or appeal to values. But it is increasingly difficult to
mobilize sufficiently rapidly the facts and counter-arguments for them
to be significant in a given debate or information campaign - and later
counter-analysis, however devastating and correct, is too late. Given the
fragmented nature of the community of discourse, it is only too easy to
question any set of "facts" . The most superior and recent analysis seldom
has unquestionable credentials, whereas many doubtful analyses may well
be produced by seemingly impeccable bodies. In this situation, every group
can legitimately make full use of its resources to produce the most adequate
explanation for its own purposes. Accusations of lack of expertise, inadequate
facts or Information, or irresponsibility become debating points whose
weight is determined by the dynamics of the debate and the skill of the
debaters since there is no recognized court of appeal. Ignorance is not
recognized as an absolute (or meaningful) condition characteristic of all
bodies not in receipt of the latest information or explanation.

Conventional explanations and appeals to values are therefore increasingly
used by the skilled as mere decorative cloaks for whatever action conforms
to their real purposes. A skilled individual can produce a sufficiently
coherent argument to justify any desired course of action. As with manufactured
articles, such arguments may be designed to last only a short time. That
they should fail after their first use, or should very rapidly be proved
obsolescent, is then irrelevant. (Dependence on conventional explanations
and appeals to values leaves an organization as much at the mercy of its
opponents as was the Polish cavalry when faced with a tank invasion.)

22. "We" and "They"

Because of the complexity of society and the individual's increasing
sense that he has little control over his environment, it becomes progressively
easier for people to lay responsibility for conditions they find disagreeable
at the door of an ill-defined, amorphous "they" . "They do this to us"
, "they should change things", etc. "They" is whoever may be considered
responsible or free to act.

This distinction clarifies and simplifies the situation for the individual,
freeing him of responsibility, and making others the cause (of the persistent)
of any perceived Ill. In the face of any problem, it is "they" who must
act or change their policies for "we" are doing the best we can and are
not free to act. "We" are the "good-guys" with some faults because "we"
are human. "They" are the "bad-guys"; "their" faults are inexcusable.

23. Apathy, cynicism, hopelessness and disillusionment

Faced with an increasing number of Increasingly interrelated problems
against which no programmes seem to have any significant remedial effect,
individuals lapse into states of apathy, cynicism, hopelessness or disillusionment.
This occurs whether the Individual has a variety of social powers and resources
at his command, or whether he has none at all. The situation is aggravated
by those who benefit from such circumstances.

Clearly such a state of mind Inhibits any creative response and saps
the personal energies of the individual concerned. It also encourages him
to profit by the conditions whilst he can and to the extent that he is
able.

24. Entrapment and alienation of committed activists

Each generation produces a number of well-qualified individuals concerned
with one or more social problems and prepared to commit themselves and
their careers in an effort to achieve a significant impact upon them. As
in any occupation, some years are spent learning the dimensions of the
problem and the possibilities for action. Thereafter, however, many of
these individuals find themselves forced into positions of compromise.
In an effort to stick to their original values, they come into conflict
with structures and resource realities which often prevent anything more
than token action. They are encouraged to be patient and find that patience
changes little. They find that those who have preceded them lapse easily
into cynicism or are satisfied with minimal change. They find that those
who are similarly inspired and who should be their allies are frequently
hostile and suspicious of any form of cooperation of more than a token
nature.

Some become aware that even when their recommendations are fully implemented
by some organizational system with apparent success, the system in effect
nullifies such achievements by adjusting itself so that other different
problems emerge. There is then no end to such a chain of displaced problems,
many of which are as much internal to the organizational system as they
are external foci of the organization's action. These situations finally
lead to a withdrawal (or "loss of faith") of many of the committed activists.
This withdrawal takes place without transfer of acquired experience and
insight to other who might later be able to overcome the dynamics of entrapment.
There is no accumulation of learning. Those who know about the dynamics
are often unable to speak about them, or have lost the desire to do so.
Those who do speak about them are frequently ill-informed and merely provoke
a repetition of learning cycles.

25. Repetition of learning cycles

In many social domains time and a variety of collective experiences
have created amongst those concerned an awareness of which actions are
feasible, viable and useful and which are not. Such collective learning
is difficult to transfer to others in such a manner as to enable them to
understand the (usually relatively sophisticated) dynamics which limit
the value of seemingly obvious positive actions. Since there is a certain
turnover of organizations, groups and individuals concerned with the problem
in that domain, those entering the context for the first time tend to initiate
proposals, recommendations and programmes which past experience has shown
to be a waste of resources or of otherwise limited value. They will however
have difficulty in recognizing this and will attribute past failure to
ineffectiveness of those involved at that time.

The consequence is that any group (possibly of institutions) with experience
extending over several "programme generations" always has latecomers who
are drawn together in support of projects which constitute the repetition
of a learning cycle. Such cycles must play themselves out in order that
the latecomers may acquire the understanding as to why those particular
actions are of limited effectiveness. They will however then be repeated
when the number of newcomers again becomes great enough to make it difficult
to redirect their attention from such seemingly obvious courses of action.

This repeated fragmentation of groups and the use of resources in support
of ineffective programmes clearly limits the ability to respond adequately
to any problem situation. It is also discouraging to those who have already
acquired, through such learning cycles, the necessary knowledge base from
which more effective programmes could be designed. However, it is also
the desire of the latecomers to apply their creative energies without regard
for past experience which leads to the acquisition of new knowledge. The
situation is such that it is seldom possible to blend both forms of knowledge
in an effective response to the problem situation.

26. Limited ability to recognize personality
needs and problems

Wherever individuals, groups or institutions work to remedy social problems,
there is an inability of all concerned to admit openly the psycho-social
needs of the individuals and groups involved. It is only in informal discussion,
and in the absence of the concerned individual, that there is frank discussion
of how to confer a sense of prestige by suitable juggling of organizational
procedures and positions, appropriate use of flattery, etc. The facilitation
of individuals "ego trips", for example, is often an absolutely essential
condition to their further support of a project. Even when two organizations
or initiatives should be merged in the light of all available information,
this will be opposed (behind the scenes) by the personalities involved
unless their status needs can be fulfilled.

Such concerns, whether for a person individually, or for a group as
represented by an individual, are basic to all social action. When they
are not even recognized in behind the scenes planning, they are recognized
tacitly in the dynamics of interaction with the person in question.

The inability to handle these matters in open debate severely inhibits
the manner in which organizations or meetings can function. Even in crisis
situations, discussion of action to be taken will not occur until these
other matters have been satisfactorily resolved through behind the scenes
manoeuvering. Frequently it is questionable, even in a crisis situation,
whether a given individual is not more interested in the recognition accorded
to himself or his group than in any substantive matter which may be discussed.
Organizational action of any kind (and even in response to crises) may
be perceived primarily as providing a legitimate opportunity for appropriate
organizational ritual to satisfy the psycho-social needs of the individuals
and groups involved. The situation is particularly serious when the personality
needs border on the psychopathic. (There are many well-documented examples
of this amongst national leadership, even in recent years, although such
matters cannot be discussed in open debate.)

Clearly the priority accorded to these needs, and the inability to
give explicit recognition to them in organizational documents or debate
despite their fundamental importance to organizational action, constitute
a constraint upon the full realization of human potential. This is the
case both because it distorts the manner by which a person develops through
action within an organization, and because it distorts the manner by which
an organization is able to act.

27. Nebulous features of societal problems

28. Limited ability to tolerate diversity

29. Limited collective social attention span

30. Limited ability to perceive and describe
social processes

31. Limited ability to develop meaningful meta-viewpoints
or justify the need for them

Positive features of limits and constraints

The limits and constraints noted above, whether singly or in combination,
effectively split the psycho-social universe into a multiplicity of overlapping
fragments. Within each such fragment, whether large or small, communication
and consensus can be readily established. These bounded fragments therefore
constitute domains within which particular views and forms of organization
are protected, developed or consolidated. They provide protected contexts
for the development of alternative forms which could not survive were the
boundaries not present.

The constraints (and the problems whose solution they hinder) constitute
features of society which provide a challenge and stimulus which may well
be essential to its healthy development. The boundary defined by the whole
set of limits may well be the barrier, frontier or shell through which
mankind has to break if it is to emerge into a new phase of development,
but by which It must be protected in order successfully to complete the
current phase.

Such constraints and problems whilst a challenge are also energy absorbents
. Each increment in human development increases the mobility and activity
of the individuals in question. This energy must be channelled and absorbed
in an adequate variety of structures and processes for in their absence
the energy may be released in an uncontrollable and disastrous manner.

As in the natural environment, when such limits are overcome the interaction
between the diverse viewpoints and organizational forms may lead to the
predominance of those most appropriate to the conditions of the time. However,
the maintenance of such bounded environments ensures the preservation and
development of alternative forms which may prove most appropriate under
different conditions or in a later time period.

Conclusion

There appear to be many ways in which mankind is limited. Attempts to
by-pass these limits constantly run the risk of being compromised or entrapped.
Many of the limits are difficult to express in a form which could provide
a basis for agreement upon some remedial action, if such were possible.
The existence of some of the limits can easily be questioned by those who
have not been exposed to them and their consequences.

There would appear to be a strong case for devoting resources to a clarification
of these limits and the extent to which they jeopardize the functioning
and success of every action programme whether currently operational or
planned for the future.